|
Anthony Matonak wrote:
Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote: Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. mike it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. That said, there are many things you can do that are quite affordable. First, you could conserve energy. Replace old appliances with more efficient ones, insulate your home better, weather-strip, storm windows, compact fluorescent lights, activate the power saving on your computer, use xeriscaping and all that lot. If you are a typical homeowners then conservation alone could be as effective as putting up a $30,000 solar panel setup. Then you could buy more affordable renewable energy equipment such as solar water heaters, air heaters, ovens, stoves and the like. You could also change your diet to include less animal products. Raising animals to produce food takes many times more resources (which often means energy) as plants alone require. There are also many alternatives to a Prius. One option would be to get a diesel powered car and use biodiesel or get it converted to run on straight vegetable oil. Another option is to buy an electric car. Currently the only ones available are "city cars" which turn out to be glorified golf carts but they are suitable for very local driving and can sometimes work as a second car. Some folks have even had great success with bicycles of various flavors. If you simply must have a hybrid vehicle then a much wider selection of them should be available within the next 10 to 15 years. Anthony -- Return address is VALID. Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below. Toshiba & Compaq LiIon Batteries, Test Equipment Honda CB-125S $800 in PDX Yaesu FTV901R Transverter, 30pS pulser Tektronix Concept Books, spot welding head... http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/ |
mike wrote:
I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on where you end up installing the panels! An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't free! |
mike wrote:
I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on where you end up installing the panels! An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't free! |
"Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
"Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? is that what you paid or
just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction .. I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ... www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check out the solar deals sections for links http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples. My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in the least year , more increases to come for sure) 24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real system , My real rates NO REBATES ... Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50% materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 = 7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a typical afternoon TOU rate) .... wrote in message ... "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? is that what you paid or
just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction .. I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ... www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check out the solar deals sections for links http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples. My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in the least year , more increases to come for sure) 24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real system , My real rates NO REBATES ... Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50% materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 = 7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a typical afternoon TOU rate) .... wrote in message ... "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:
[snip] While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! [snip] Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California don't need it doesn't mean no one does. Charles Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler. |
Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:
[snip] While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! [snip] Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California don't need it doesn't mean no one does. Charles Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler. |
The current issue of home power magazine directly answers this ...
www.home-power.com It is a myth (your understanding) , panels recoup there cost in about 2-3 years and will last much longer than 25 years. The 25 years , is the manufactures warranty for 80% power generation .... The panels will last until they suffer physically damage, the silicon will deliver power well past our or our children's life times ... "mike" wrote in message ... I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. mike |
The current issue of home power magazine directly answers this ...
www.home-power.com It is a myth (your understanding) , panels recoup there cost in about 2-3 years and will last much longer than 25 years. The 25 years , is the manufactures warranty for 80% power generation .... The panels will last until they suffer physically damage, the silicon will deliver power well past our or our children's life times ... "mike" wrote in message ... I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. mike |
In article , "Joel Kolstad"
writes: mike wrote: I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on where you end up installing the panels! An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't free! Actually, solar panels DO - under circumstances, but that seems beside the point in this particular thread. We all get a migration from the original thread question to automobile economy (!) and a lot of polarized opinions. :-) It seems that the higher the polarization level, the more they become like electrolytic capacitors. Put them in the wrong way and they blow up... The original thread question (maybe) was about using solar cells for battery charging. In that case there needs to be identification with two major application areas: 1. The characteristics necessary to charge a particular battery. 2. The range of input voltage and current sufficient to operate the charging circuit as obtained from solar cells. Nobody seems to have addressed item (1) which would seem to drive the whole task. Item (2) could have been satisfied with actual measurements in a 48-hour time period, one day to set it up, a second day to take the measurements, noting time of day, cloud cover, etc. Please excuse me for thinking linearly... :-) Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
In article , "Joel Kolstad"
writes: mike wrote: I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense from an environmental standpoint. My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on where you end up installing the panels! An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't free! Actually, solar panels DO - under circumstances, but that seems beside the point in this particular thread. We all get a migration from the original thread question to automobile economy (!) and a lot of polarized opinions. :-) It seems that the higher the polarization level, the more they become like electrolytic capacitors. Put them in the wrong way and they blow up... The original thread question (maybe) was about using solar cells for battery charging. In that case there needs to be identification with two major application areas: 1. The characteristics necessary to charge a particular battery. 2. The range of input voltage and current sufficient to operate the charging circuit as obtained from solar cells. Nobody seems to have addressed item (1) which would seem to drive the whole task. Item (2) could have been satisfied with actual measurements in a 48-hour time period, one day to set it up, a second day to take the measurements, noting time of day, cloud cover, etc. Please excuse me for thinking linearly... :-) Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
"Solar Guppy" wrote:
The current issue of home power magazine directly answers this ... www.home-power.com That's http://www.homepower.com/ (the other one is a WWWeb interface to one of these newsgroups. -- William Smith ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com |
"Solar Guppy" wrote:
The current issue of home power magazine directly answers this ... www.home-power.com That's http://www.homepower.com/ (the other one is a WWWeb interface to one of these newsgroups. -- William Smith ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message ... On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened wrote in : A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there still is a grid during and after WW3 that is. JP I would say that so far during WW# there is still a grid. |
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message ... On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened wrote in : A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there still is a grid during and after WW3 that is. JP I would say that so far during WW# there is still a grid. |
"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote: [snip] While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! [snip] Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California don't need it doesn't mean no one does. Charles Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler. A van with 4X4 or allwheel drive and ground clearance is an SUV. Gas mileage becomes secondary if every time you try to move you get stuck. The small SUV hold a family of 5 uncomfortably the larger hold a family of seven, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa + 2 or more kids comfortably plus will pull that 30'+ mobile home they camp in. Again not everyone lives in Southern California where you can't do anything fun least you violate some environmentalists dream. Personally I bought the smallest vehicle I felt could do the job I needed it to. That turned out to be a V6 that get about 25mpg highway. Charles |
"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote: [snip] While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! [snip] Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis prior to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California don't need it doesn't mean no one does. Charles Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler. A van with 4X4 or allwheel drive and ground clearance is an SUV. Gas mileage becomes secondary if every time you try to move you get stuck. The small SUV hold a family of 5 uncomfortably the larger hold a family of seven, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa + 2 or more kids comfortably plus will pull that 30'+ mobile home they camp in. Again not everyone lives in Southern California where you can't do anything fun least you violate some environmentalists dream. Personally I bought the smallest vehicle I felt could do the job I needed it to. That turned out to be a V6 that get about 25mpg highway. Charles |
Solar Guppy wrote: And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? What it says. You buy (not build) a complete 2 kW system for $15,000. See below is that what you paid or No. There was a long thread in alt.engineering.electrical discussing this - it's the price mentioned by a guy in Maine for a commercial system. There's a guy off grid in California who built his own, like you did. His cost for solar + inverter, not including batteries & DC instrumentation, was about 10K for 4 kW. See the site for details: http://www.electronconnection.com/Media/OurSystem.pdf just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction .. Not "pure fiction". I clearly labeled it an assumption, which is WAY different than "pure fiction". Here's the quote, since you may have missed the first word: "Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. " I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ... I don't doubt that. Your write up lends credence to the much higher cost of a commercial system vs a do-it-yourself system. You indicated it was very labor intensive to build the first one, taking over 5 months of your spare time. A first time builder would go well over the 6 days labor you cited on your second build. In any event, the labor cost would be borne in the purchase price of a commercial system. www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check out the solar deals sections for links http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples. My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in the least year , more increases to come for sure) Your average proves that my assumption is way too high. Perhaps that's what you meant by "pure fiction". Anyway, your 6 kW system produces 24kWhr/day in Florida - I would expect lower if it was installed here (in NY). And it means best case, a 2kW system here would produce about 1/3 that or about 1/2 what I assumed. That doubles the "payback" time - which would never happen with the 2kW system at $15,000 here. 24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real system , My real rates NO REBATES ... And at $17,000 for the system, your mortgage cost assuming 25 years, 7% will be over $36,000. Therefore, your *real* payback is 36000/2.88 = 12500 (days) = 34.25 years. That assumes your system requires no replacement parts, no regular maintenance costs, and does not degrade over time, for the full 34 + years. Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50% materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 = 7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a typical afternoon TOU rate) .... wrote in message ... "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
Solar Guppy wrote: And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? What it says. You buy (not build) a complete 2 kW system for $15,000. See below is that what you paid or No. There was a long thread in alt.engineering.electrical discussing this - it's the price mentioned by a guy in Maine for a commercial system. There's a guy off grid in California who built his own, like you did. His cost for solar + inverter, not including batteries & DC instrumentation, was about 10K for 4 kW. See the site for details: http://www.electronconnection.com/Media/OurSystem.pdf just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction .. Not "pure fiction". I clearly labeled it an assumption, which is WAY different than "pure fiction". Here's the quote, since you may have missed the first word: "Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. " I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ... I don't doubt that. Your write up lends credence to the much higher cost of a commercial system vs a do-it-yourself system. You indicated it was very labor intensive to build the first one, taking over 5 months of your spare time. A first time builder would go well over the 6 days labor you cited on your second build. In any event, the labor cost would be borne in the purchase price of a commercial system. www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check out the solar deals sections for links http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples. My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in the least year , more increases to come for sure) Your average proves that my assumption is way too high. Perhaps that's what you meant by "pure fiction". Anyway, your 6 kW system produces 24kWhr/day in Florida - I would expect lower if it was installed here (in NY). And it means best case, a 2kW system here would produce about 1/3 that or about 1/2 what I assumed. That doubles the "payback" time - which would never happen with the 2kW system at $15,000 here. 24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real system , My real rates NO REBATES ... And at $17,000 for the system, your mortgage cost assuming 25 years, 7% will be over $36,000. Therefore, your *real* payback is 36000/2.88 = 12500 (days) = 34.25 years. That assumes your system requires no replacement parts, no regular maintenance costs, and does not degrade over time, for the full 34 + years. Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50% materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 = 7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a typical afternoon TOU rate) .... wrote in message ... "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote: Joel Kolstad wrote: Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process lose reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a higher capacity overall. The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a better charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point controllers') can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on small systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile, now, and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have this functionality. Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co. She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well, I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is _not_ cheap. Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time, if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid, solar can become very attractive.) A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. |
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened wrote in : A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there still is a grid during and after WW3 that is. JP Use Solar Guppy's measured numbers and show us how to take into account what you have in mind. I don't know how to do it - I can't figure out what the rates will be N, N+1, N+2 etc years from now. But while you are talking about things "you have to take into account": you have to take into account the fact that most homes are not "solar friendly". By that I mean that they can't get a full days sun on the solar panels, due to neighbors trees, hills, the house orientation on the lot, size of the lot, etc. You have to take into account maintenance costs for the solar system - it is totally unrealistic to assume that the initial cost of the solar system installation is all you will pay during the life of the system. You also have to take into account the degradation of the system capacity over time. |
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened wrote in : A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13 cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or $2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback, if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system. Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage. You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there still is a grid during and after WW3 that is. JP Use Solar Guppy's measured numbers and show us how to take into account what you have in mind. I don't know how to do it - I can't figure out what the rates will be N, N+1, N+2 etc years from now. But while you are talking about things "you have to take into account": you have to take into account the fact that most homes are not "solar friendly". By that I mean that they can't get a full days sun on the solar panels, due to neighbors trees, hills, the house orientation on the lot, size of the lot, etc. You have to take into account maintenance costs for the solar system - it is totally unrealistic to assume that the initial cost of the solar system installation is all you will pay during the life of the system. You also have to take into account the degradation of the system capacity over time. |
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message ... Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote: Anthony Matonak wrote: While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! The definition of "little" can vary. :) Would you consider 5 MPG a "little" ? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml Shows the Prius at 60/51 mpg with a couple of VW's in the 38/46 range. This is only 1.6/1.1 times and not double, especially when considering highway driving instead of city driving. This means you can purchase a vehicle with good fuel efficiency without buying a Prius or even a hybrid. Most people have a passenger car typical of a Toyota Camry, typically a 6Cyl auto trans that gets mileage in the mid 20s. (you can select yours here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm) But the percentage of people driving passenger cars is dwindling, more and more are driving SUVs and trucks. Those get even worse mileage. One of my coworkers bought a new Toyota Highlander 4WD which is based on the Camry and it gets even less (she says less than 20) than her 2 year old 2WD highlander. Another coworker gets less than 20 MPG on a Chevy Tahoe SUV. So the Prius gets even _better_ than double the average vehicle MPG. The Honda hybrids do even better. Looking at the difference between the hybrids and SUVs, it's more like 3 to 1 better mileage, and that's mothing to sneeze at! [snip] You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy. I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could [snip] The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes. It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things, so the prices are higher. [snip] Anthony |
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message ... Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote: Anthony Matonak wrote: While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage. It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to 25! The definition of "little" can vary. :) Would you consider 5 MPG a "little" ? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml Shows the Prius at 60/51 mpg with a couple of VW's in the 38/46 range. This is only 1.6/1.1 times and not double, especially when considering highway driving instead of city driving. This means you can purchase a vehicle with good fuel efficiency without buying a Prius or even a hybrid. Most people have a passenger car typical of a Toyota Camry, typically a 6Cyl auto trans that gets mileage in the mid 20s. (you can select yours here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm) But the percentage of people driving passenger cars is dwindling, more and more are driving SUVs and trucks. Those get even worse mileage. One of my coworkers bought a new Toyota Highlander 4WD which is based on the Camry and it gets even less (she says less than 20) than her 2 year old 2WD highlander. Another coworker gets less than 20 MPG on a Chevy Tahoe SUV. So the Prius gets even _better_ than double the average vehicle MPG. The Honda hybrids do even better. Looking at the difference between the hybrids and SUVs, it's more like 3 to 1 better mileage, and that's mothing to sneeze at! [snip] You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy. I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could [snip] The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes. It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things, so the prices are higher. [snip] Anthony |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy. I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could [snip] The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes. It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things, so the prices are higher. The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very low. You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the most common, method in use. Anthony |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy. I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could [snip] The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes. It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things, so the prices are higher. The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very low. You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the most common, method in use. Anthony |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
.... My apt. owner put solar water heater panels on the roof more than ten years ago, and I don't think they've been cost effective. The neighborhood vandals threw rocks at one and broke it, so they had to pur chicken wire over the panels to prevent damage. The cats used the foam pipe insulation to sharpen their claws, so it's gone for about two feet up from the roof. The controller and storage tanks are not working as they should, so I would guess that the system needs repair. All in all, even with the rebates, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. .... In the 80's there were a lot of government rebate programs to promote the use of solar water heaters. This gave rise to many installers who existed simply to exploit the rebates and as a result they installed shoddy equipment and gave buyers unrealistic expectations. Once the government rebates dried up these predatory companies disappeared and their warranties along with them. This is why there was such a glut of broken down solar water heaters and people completely dissatisfied with the entire idea. This doesn't mean that they can't be cost effective. I've seen many solar water heaters that have been in continuous use for 20+ years with only minimal maintenance and the owners of these appear to be satisfied. Anthony |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
.... My apt. owner put solar water heater panels on the roof more than ten years ago, and I don't think they've been cost effective. The neighborhood vandals threw rocks at one and broke it, so they had to pur chicken wire over the panels to prevent damage. The cats used the foam pipe insulation to sharpen their claws, so it's gone for about two feet up from the roof. The controller and storage tanks are not working as they should, so I would guess that the system needs repair. All in all, even with the rebates, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. .... In the 80's there were a lot of government rebate programs to promote the use of solar water heaters. This gave rise to many installers who existed simply to exploit the rebates and as a result they installed shoddy equipment and gave buyers unrealistic expectations. Once the government rebates dried up these predatory companies disappeared and their warranties along with them. This is why there was such a glut of broken down solar water heaters and people completely dissatisfied with the entire idea. This doesn't mean that they can't be cost effective. I've seen many solar water heaters that have been in continuous use for 20+ years with only minimal maintenance and the owners of these appear to be satisfied. Anthony |
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Anthony Matonak wrote:
In the 80's there were a lot of government rebate programs to promote the use of solar water heaters. This gave rise to many installers who existed simply to exploit the rebates and as a result they installed shoddy equipment and gave buyers unrealistic expectations. Once the government rebates dried up these predatory companies disappeared and their warranties along with them. This is why there was such a glut of broken down solar water heaters and people completely dissatisfied with the entire idea. This doesn't mean that they can't be cost effective. I've seen many solar water heaters that have been in continuous use for 20+ years with only minimal maintenance and the owners of these appear to be satisfied. In fact, we had one of these installed around 1980, just after the Feds started the rebate program and my late wife's dad died, leaving her a bunch'o'bucks. It worked _very_ well indeed until June 2002, when it died catastrophically, leaking water in a proprietary fitting, just after we got back from Canada. It gave yeoman service up to then, and if I could find someone with the parts, I'd put it back in service again. It was _really_ nice to have 300 gallons of hot water _and_ forced-air heating to all the rooms in the house. Now we're back to a floor furnace. The only thing I had to do in all those 20+ years was install a switch to sense loss of water pressure and turn off the recirc pump for the silicone oil, so that it wouldn't overheat and decompose because it didn't see cool water in the heat exchanger. After a little bit of cut and try, the plumber and I got that working just fine. Oh, and we did actually wear out (water flow around a bend in a tube finally wore through the tube wall) a heat exchanger, but that was replaced under warranty. I miss it. -- Mike Andrews Tired old sysadmin |
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Anthony Matonak wrote:
In the 80's there were a lot of government rebate programs to promote the use of solar water heaters. This gave rise to many installers who existed simply to exploit the rebates and as a result they installed shoddy equipment and gave buyers unrealistic expectations. Once the government rebates dried up these predatory companies disappeared and their warranties along with them. This is why there was such a glut of broken down solar water heaters and people completely dissatisfied with the entire idea. This doesn't mean that they can't be cost effective. I've seen many solar water heaters that have been in continuous use for 20+ years with only minimal maintenance and the owners of these appear to be satisfied. In fact, we had one of these installed around 1980, just after the Feds started the rebate program and my late wife's dad died, leaving her a bunch'o'bucks. It worked _very_ well indeed until June 2002, when it died catastrophically, leaking water in a proprietary fitting, just after we got back from Canada. It gave yeoman service up to then, and if I could find someone with the parts, I'd put it back in service again. It was _really_ nice to have 300 gallons of hot water _and_ forced-air heating to all the rooms in the house. Now we're back to a floor furnace. The only thing I had to do in all those 20+ years was install a switch to sense loss of water pressure and turn off the recirc pump for the silicone oil, so that it wouldn't overheat and decompose because it didn't see cool water in the heat exchanger. After a little bit of cut and try, the plumber and I got that working just fine. Oh, and we did actually wear out (water flow around a bend in a tube finally wore through the tube wall) a heat exchanger, but that was replaced under warranty. I miss it. -- Mike Andrews Tired old sysadmin |
|
|
So now you saying solar thermal has no pay back ? ... please ... solar
thermal is about 5x better than solar PV in payback times. The cost is about 1700.00 (US) for a system that will replace about 90% of domestic hot-water needs , and in my last house , lowered my electric usage by about 45 dollars a month. There are many web-references to the 3-4 year break even ... instead of picking on my grammar , spend some time to get your facts right and use Google for references instead of your obvious fact-less opinions of solar thermal and solar electric. "Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... SNIP My apt. owner put solar water heater panels on the roof more than ten years ago, and I don't think they've been cost effective. The neighborhood vandals threw rocks at one and broke it, so they had to pur chicken wire over the panels to prevent damage. The cats used the foam pipe insulation to sharpen their claws, so it's gone for about two feet up from the roof. The controller and storage tanks are not working as they should, so I would guess that the system needs repair. All in all, even with the rebates, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. I think that the figures that you gave might be optimum, but not realistic, when other things are considered. Like dirt and snow can seriously reduce the solar output. So some maintenance has to be done. And there are other factors, intangibles, that have to be considered, such as breakdown on the electronics. When that happens, the owner may have to make a tough decision to spend a lot of money to repair, or just leave it unrepaired and disconnect it. Don't say that's not going to happen! Most of the solar heater panels I've seen are not working after a few years. It's a just matter of entropy. Things just get ignored and turn to dust, and no one bothers with them anymore. BTW, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs work. [snip] |
So now you saying solar thermal has no pay back ? ... please ... solar
thermal is about 5x better than solar PV in payback times. The cost is about 1700.00 (US) for a system that will replace about 90% of domestic hot-water needs , and in my last house , lowered my electric usage by about 45 dollars a month. There are many web-references to the 3-4 year break even ... instead of picking on my grammar , spend some time to get your facts right and use Google for references instead of your obvious fact-less opinions of solar thermal and solar electric. "Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... SNIP My apt. owner put solar water heater panels on the roof more than ten years ago, and I don't think they've been cost effective. The neighborhood vandals threw rocks at one and broke it, so they had to pur chicken wire over the panels to prevent damage. The cats used the foam pipe insulation to sharpen their claws, so it's gone for about two feet up from the roof. The controller and storage tanks are not working as they should, so I would guess that the system needs repair. All in all, even with the rebates, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. I think that the figures that you gave might be optimum, but not realistic, when other things are considered. Like dirt and snow can seriously reduce the solar output. So some maintenance has to be done. And there are other factors, intangibles, that have to be considered, such as breakdown on the electronics. When that happens, the owner may have to make a tough decision to spend a lot of money to repair, or just leave it unrepaired and disconnect it. Don't say that's not going to happen! Most of the solar heater panels I've seen are not working after a few years. It's a just matter of entropy. Things just get ignored and turn to dust, and no one bothers with them anymore. BTW, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs work. [snip] |
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened wrote in : ou also have to take into account the degradation of the system capacity over time. That would be 80% of capacity I think. And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago, that of today, and draw a line, it will point up, extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value. The other thing that will help is the inflation, you can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years. This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look ridiculously low. From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps. Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on other things now. JP Your figures are off, and are unrealistic. You said money halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2. And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of $72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at the high end already, and won't see the same kind of percentage increases that people starting out will see. It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making $72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now. If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the payback, if it does come. What is needed to make solar economically viable for the masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided power. That does not mean that there are no individual cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid. But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the people who can connect to the grid. The number of people who are grid connected and are economically ahead with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year payback period - and that's without considering mortgage, degradation, maintenance etc. over time. Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but still an asinine financial move, unless you have some idea of when the break-even point will be. In most cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation. I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy, or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites, I recommend taking a look. |
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened wrote in : ou also have to take into account the degradation of the system capacity over time. That would be 80% of capacity I think. And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago, that of today, and draw a line, it will point up, extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value. The other thing that will help is the inflation, you can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years. This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look ridiculously low. From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps. Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on other things now. JP Your figures are off, and are unrealistic. You said money halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2. And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of $72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at the high end already, and won't see the same kind of percentage increases that people starting out will see. It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making $72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now. If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the payback, if it does come. What is needed to make solar economically viable for the masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided power. That does not mean that there are no individual cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid. But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the people who can connect to the grid. The number of people who are grid connected and are economically ahead with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year payback period - and that's without considering mortgage, degradation, maintenance etc. over time. Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but still an asinine financial move, unless you have some idea of when the break-even point will be. In most cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation. I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy, or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites, I recommend taking a look. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com